U.S.: Attack Dogs Used Against Prisoners

sponger

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Why not taser or spray them with mace? I never said that having a police force is inhumane. The human race has proven themselves far too stupid NOT to have a police force.

Because the taser or mace don't have that "you had better not try this again" effect. If you've been watching the prison documentaries on A&E, then you've noticed that it is usually the same prisoners who are screwing with the officers over and over again.

Puck78

sponger wrote:

Because the taser or mace don't have that "you had better not try this again" effect. If you've been watching the prison documentaries on A&E, then you've noticed that it is usually the same prisoners who are screwing with the officers over and over again.

still using dogs like that is torture

Puck78

PaperPlates wrote:

these people gave up their rights the day they were convicted of trampling on someone elses in such a manner that they were deemed unfit for society and incarcerated . IMHO.

well, your "modest opinion" doesn't follow the law.
How can you pretend to impose to people to follow the law using methods that don't follow the law? You're contradicting yourself.
Indeed the guards will be sentenced for that.

wendy1976

sponger wrote:

Because the taser or mace don't have that "you had better not try this again" effect. If you've been watching the prison documentaries on A&E, then you've noticed that it is usually the same prisoners who are screwing with the officers over and over again.

but using a dog as a weapon??It is an unpredictable "weapon".You never knowe what a dog may do when it is feeling cornerd by the prisoner.It might attack without stopping or might deside that he likes the prisoner better then the guard....so besides the fact that it is torture in my opinion(both for the prisioner aswell as for the dog if it gets hurt),using methodes like this can go really wrong and then the effect that they are trying to get get's lost anyway.

sponger

wendy1976 wrote:

but using a dog as a weapon??It is an unpredictable "weapon".You never knowe what a dog may do when it is feeling cornerd by the prisoner.It might attack without stopping or might deside that he likes the prisoner better then the guard....so besides the fact that it is torture in my opinion(both for the prisioner aswell as for the dog if it gets hurt),using methodes like this can go really wrong and then the effect that they are trying to get get's lost anyway.

And you are an expert on police attack dogs? Do you know how much training those dogs go through? Those dogs do not get their badge unless they've been trained to do exactly as the officer says. I'd trust a dog to do his job correctly before I trust an officer.

But, I agree that it is a danger to the dog. And for that reason I'd say that it is not right. However, I have no problems with a dog sinking his teeth into the arm of someone who refuses to comply with law enforcement. That is, after all, the rationale behind the usage of dogs out on the beat. If someone resists arrest, it is all the justification that is needed to sick the dog on him.

In the same situation in jail. By refusing to come out of his cell, the prisoner is saying that he is no longer a prisoner. It's like he's resisting arrest. And generally, speaking, it is not uncommon for those prisoners to thwart the prison officers with acts of violence.

So, how is the use of dogs to arrest someone different from using dogs to bring a prisoner under control in a prison?

wendy1976

sponger wrote:

And you are an expert on police attack dogs? Do you know how much training those dogs go through? Those dogs do not get their badge unless they've been trained to do exactly as the officer says. I'd trust a dog to do his job correctly before I trust an officer.

As a matter of fact i do know quit a lot about it yes....i worked at a dog training center.Ok not at the section where the policemen trained their dogs,but i went to see howe they do that and talked to the trainers quite a lot.And i have never met a trainer that said a dog is to be fully trusted,it can always fall back on their instincts if a situation occures that they did not train for.You cannot train a dog for all the unexpected things a prisoner might do when he is scared shitless when a police dog is set free in his cell.
We had here in holland a big thing in the news a few months ago where some police dogs (that were only trained to seperate a group of people)went nuts because of the chaos that was going on.There where young girls and boys that where just coming out of the club that got serious bite wounds,the police could not get control back over the dogs.The dogs had their training and so did the cops that handled the dogs....so it can always happen that instinct takes over when the dogs are scared or something.

edit i think it is the same when a dog is used in an arrest....i also think that can lead to really unpredictable situations!

sponger

I didn't know that about police dogs...very interesting. So, there is a chance that the dog might rip the guy's head off. Well, then I guess I have to say that it isn't all that moral of thing to use dogs on disobedient prisoners. But, it's also hard for me to feel all too sorry for those prisoners. And after watching the prison documentaries on A&E, I just have a hard time understanding how those officers do it on a daily basis. They are literally responsible for keeping thousands of violent people under control. The projection of dominance is key to maintaining order in a situation like that. Obviously, stun guns and tasers are the more humane method. Whether a disobedient prisoner deserves that much humanity in treatment is really what I'm questioning.

wendy1976

sponger wrote:

I didn't know that about police dogs...very interesting. So, there is a chance that the dog might rip the guy's head off. Well, then I guess I have to say that it isn't all that moral of thing to use dogs on disobedient prisoners. But, it's also hard for me to feel all too sorry for those prisoners. And after watching the prison documentaries on A&E, I just have a hard time understanding how those officers do it on a daily basis. They are literally responsible for keeping thousands of violent people under control. The projection of dominance is key to maintaining order in a situation like that. Obviously, stun guns and tasers are the more humane method. Whether a disobedient prisoner deserves that much humanity in treatment is really what I'm questioning.

All i am saying is that sometimes i believe force is neccesary to keep people that are a danger to others in line...only not with a unpredictable method.Not a big fan of stun guns either but i do agree with what you say about the safety of the guards aswell.Don't get me wrong i do know that there are some dangerous people in those cells,it just is hard for me to justify that violence is used to keep people in line,but i am not so naive that i do not understand that sometimes there is no other way.
Here in holland we have really different jails then in the us,some say they are just like hotels,but it gives less problems like this because the prisoners are not joining cells with others.Is more save for the guards that way too.So there are other ways.And for me using dogs is just crossing the line.

Puck78

sponger wrote:

And you are an expert on police attack dogs? Do you know how much training those dogs go through?

wendy1976 wrote:

As a matter of fact i do know quit a lot about it yes....i worked at a dog training center

AHAHAHAHAH, how to silence a person....

Anyway, back on topic:
there's a difference between methods approved and torture... and using dogs is not a method to put order between the prisoners, it's a method to torture them...

sponger

Puck78 wrote:

AHAHAHAHAH, how to silence a person....

right...nothing funnier than a person being silenced.

Anyway, back on topic:
there's a difference between methods approved and torture... and using dogs is not a method to put order between the prisoners, it's a method to torture them...

I like how you said that. You said there's a difference between what's approved and what is torture...as if the opposite of torture is what's approved. If you gauge humanity on what is approved and not approved, then your understanding of humane treatment is questionable.

Your comment is a good example of what was discovered during the obedience experiments in the 50's. A test was conducted to see how much abuse a person would enact on another person if that abuse was sanctioned as "allowable" by an observing authority.

The results were that an overwhelming majority of people had little problem with what amounted to serious torture as long as they were being "instructed" to enact that torture. They weren't aware that it was a mock experiment, and that the person being tortured was an actor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

And this willingness comes from the mindset that you displayed just now - the mindset that whatever is approved must not be torture, and vice versa.

In other words, if dogs were approved and tasers not, you'd be saying that tasers are inhumane, while dogs are the more moral option.

wendy1976

I was not trying to silence anyone.I just did not like the implication that i did not know what i was talking about.But after my post sponger answered in a good way,so lets not make a batlle out of a discussion.

sponger

wendy1976 wrote:

I was not trying to silence anyone.I just did not like the implication that i did not know what i was talking about.But after my post sponger answered in a good way,so lets not make a batlle out of a discussion.

And let's not forget that I phrased that implication in the form of a question, thus giving you the benefit of the doubt - albeit in a rather presumptuous way.

The act of a person being "silenced" took place in Puck's mind, and Puck's mind only. And I'm sure that scenario played out in his mind for reasons we might not ever comprehend.

Puck78

sponger wrote:

The act of a person being "silenced" took place in Puck's mind, and Puck's mind only. And I'm sure that scenario played out in his mind for reasons we might not ever comprehend.

hey, don't cry, i was joking...

wendy1976

sponger wrote:

And let's not forget that I phrased that implication in the form of a question, thus giving you the benefit of the doubt - albeit in a rather presumptuous way.

The act of a person being "silenced" took place in Puck's mind, and Puck's mind only. And I'm sure that scenario played out in his mind for reasons we might not ever comprehend.

I do not have to comprehend.Puck is a nice guy.Do not want to make him look bad either,just wanted to explain to the both of you what my intentions were:D

Puck78

sponger wrote:

I like how you said that. You said there's a difference between what's approved and what is torture...as if the opposite of torture is what's approved. If you gauge humanity on what is approved and not approved, then your understanding of humane treatment is questionable.

Your comment is a good example of what was discovered during the obedience experiments in the 50's. A test was conducted to see how much abuse a person would enact on another person if that abuse was sanctioned as "allowable" by an observing authority.

The results were that an overwhelming majority of people had little problem with what amounted to serious torture as long as they were being "instructed" to enact that torture. They weren't aware that it was a mock experiment, and that the person being tortured was an actor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

And this willingness comes from the mindset that you displayed just now - the mindset that whatever is approved must not be torture, and vice versa.

In other words, if dogs were approved and tasers not, you'd be saying that tasers are inhumane, while dogs are the more moral option.

you arrived quite far in your speculations in my ideas... if you knew me, you would know that i work for a well-known organization (that i will not name here) that controls the operate of governments... even when they claim to act under the laws. That means: we eventually criticise the same laws if they prospect torture, death penalty, etc.
When i was talking about "recognised methods" i meant methods in respect of Human Rights law.

EDIT: missing "s" after "government"

Skitch Patterson

How is this torture? at all?
If you break the law and are running from the cops, there is a good chance an "attack dog" may be used to bring you down for arrest, how is this different?

Its not being used on the prisoners that are doing what they are instructed to do, only the ones that steadfastly refuse to follow orders.... and the danger is awfully great to a guard to go into a room, alone, with a criminal- armed with only a night stick, for every prisoner that doesnt feel like waking up, or with a grudge.

As far as i know, a taser or mace are not used in the general popluation of the cell area- for the same reason guns arent used.

A dog may be the perfect weapon to use in a jail for this type of thing.... its more intimidating than a taser, beating, or mace- so far more effective in discouraging bad behavior... but is also impossible to be stolen and used by the inmates against the guards.

sponger

Skitch Patterson wrote:

How is this torture? at all?
If you break the law and are running from the cops, there is a good chance an "attack dog" may be used to bring you down for arrest, how is this different?

Its not being used on the prisoners that are doing what they are instructed to do, only the ones that steadfastly refuse to follow orders.... and the danger is awfully great to a guard to go into a room, alone, with a criminal- armed with only a night stick, for every prisoner that doesnt feel like waking up, or with a grudge.

As far as i know, a taser or mace are not used in the general popluation of the cell area- for the same reason guns arent used.

A dog may be the perfect weapon to use in a jail for this type of thing.... its more intimidating than a taser, beating, or mace- so far more effective in discouraging bad behavior... but is also impossible to be stolen and used by the inmates against the guards.

f'n eh. Way to carry the torch on this one.

Puck78

Skitch Patterson wrote:

How is this torture? at all?

you're right, it's not torture, it's disneyland:
http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/images/iraq-torture-dogs-thumb.jpg

...do you have the minimum idea of the psycological traumas that this kind of torture gives? Have you ever read/heard any witnesses from tortured people? I guess not...
I think that uoi have to decide: or prisons are made to avoid that certain people should committ crimes again, or are made for your revenge against them.
If you think that they are made for revenge, then don't come and say that the usa attacked iraq to bring there Human Rights, because it seems to me that the level of Human Rights violations in the US jails are the same that were in Iraq in the Saddam period

wendy1976

Puck78 wrote:

you're right, it's not torture, it's disneyland:
http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/images/iraq-torture-dogs-thumb.jpg

I cannot believe anny of you can look at that picture and then not see that using dogs to terrify people(because that is what we are talking about here) is going to lead to these kind of curcumstances.And please do not say that in an amarican jail it wil be different....if you give guards this kind of power,some are going to abuse that.If you think like that in my opinion you are just as much a criminal,because you give your ok to violence against sombody that is already doing their time/punishment.

BarkingDogs

wendy1976 wrote:

As a matter of fact i do know quit a lot about it yes....i worked at a dog training center.Ok not at the section where the policemen trained their dogs,but i went to see howe they do that and talked to the trainers quite a lot.And i have never met a trainer that said a dog is to be fully trusted,it can always fall back on their instincts if a situation occures that they did not train for.You cannot train a dog for all the unexpected things a prisoner might do when he is scared shitless when a police dog is set free in his cell.
We had here in holland a big thing in the news a few months ago where some police dogs (that were only trained to seperate a group of people)went nuts because of the chaos that was going on.There where young girls and boys that where just coming out of the club that got serious bite wounds,the police could not get control back over the dogs.The dogs had their training and so did the cops that handled the dogs....so it can always happen that instinct takes over when the dogs are scared or something.

edit i think it is the same when a dog is used in an arrest....i also think that can lead to really unpredictable situations!

here in america the police dogs undergo a much more rigorous training regimin than holland evidentally (at a cost of at least 20k per dog to complete)...after working 22 years in fire and ems and i have several friends that are k9 officers and i have asked the similar question...." will the dog ever do as it pleases and not obey?" overwhelmingly the answere is "no"
i know of no such random dog attacks on club goers here in the states nor have i seen anything but minor injuries secondary to k9 officer bites.....these dogs inflict far less physical injury than would a nightstick, beanbag gun or taser. Dog bites actually carry less risk of infection than either a cat scratch or a human bite..plus these dogs do not "maul"...they simply bite and do not release until ordered...inflicting only minor puncture wounds accompianed by minor swelling and bruising (I have treated multiple patients bitten by k9 officers)...these are not sick pitbulls mauling some 12 year olds face...these are highly trained animals/ police officers....like i said earlier, you are comparing apples and oranges comparing k9 officers in holland vs american k9 officers...the us has one of the most sofisticated public safety systems (police, fire, ems) in the world...but it will only be fully effective if we are allowed to protect ourselves and perform our duties as trained without undue outside influence...

as far as firing the officers in question for the earlier noted offenses...im sure they were only following departmental policy, therefore should not hold any liability.